J-S33010-22

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

v.

DERRICK RICO TAYLOR, JR. 

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

 PENNSYLVANIA

 No. 670 EDA 2022

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered March 3, 2022,

in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County,

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-46-SA-0000698-2021.

BEFORE: KUNSELMAN, J., KING, J., and SULLIVAN, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY KUNSELMAN, J.: FILED OCTOBER 24, 2022

Derrick Rico Taylor, Jr. appeals, pro se, from the judgment of sentence, 

imposing $350 in fines and costs after the trial court convicted him of various 

summary offenses arising from a traffic incident.1 Because Mr. Taylor did not

comply with many appellate rules, we dismiss his appeal.

As explained in the trial court’s Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 

1925(a) Opinion, Mr. Taylor did not perform the duties required of an appellant 

to perfect an appeal. First, he did not attach the docket entry of the appealedfrom order to his notice appeal. See Trial Court Opinion, 6/13/22, at 2. 

Second, Mr. Taylor did not include a request for the transcript of his non-jury 

trial. See id. Third, he did not serve his notice of appeal on the 

____________________________________________

1 See 75 Pa.C.S.A. §§ 3301(a) (failing to drive on the right side of the road); 

3306(a)(2) (improperly approaching an intersection); 3309(1) (failing to drive 

within a single lane of traffic); and 3714(a),(c) (carelessly driving and causing 

serious bodily injury).
J-S33010-22

- 2 -

Commonwealth, the trial judge, or the court reporter. See id. at 2-3. 

Because he failed to inform the court reporter of his appeal, the court reporter

never produced a transcript of the trial. As a result, this Court has no record 

to review. 

Mr. Taylor’s failure to follow the appellate rules has left us in the dark 

as to the facts of his case. Therefore, he has made it impossible for this Court 

to perform its appellate function. Ensuring the transmission of a complete 

record (including the trial transcript) was Mr. Taylor’s responsibly, because he 

is the one appealing. See Commonwealth v. Williams, 715 A.2d 1101, 

1106 (Pa. 1998) (obligating appellant to purchase the transcript of the trialcourt proceeding and ensuring its transmission to the appellate court).

Moreover, Mr. Taylor has not filed anything that could reasonably be 

called an appellate brief with this Court. He provided us with a one-page, 

handwritten document that is 16 lines in length. 

When appearing before Pennsylvania’s appellate courts, the appealing 

party must adequately brief us regarding his claims of trial-court error. Under 

the appellate rules, an appellant’s brief must consist of the following matters, 

separately and distinctly entitled and in the following order:

(1) Statement of jurisdiction.

(2) Order or other determination in question.

(3) Statement of both the scope of review and the 

standard of review.

(4) Statement of the questions involved.

(5) Statement of the case.
J-S33010-22

- 3 -

(6) Summary of argument.

(7) Statement of the reasons to allow an appeal to 

challenge the discretionary aspects of a sentence, if 

applicable.

(8) Argument for appellant.

(9) A short conclusion stating the precise relief sought. 

Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 2111(a).

Mr. Taylor’s one-page filing contains none of the foregoing sections and 

discusses no issues of trial-court error.2 Hence, we have nothing to review.

“This Court possesses discretionary authority to quash, dismiss, or deny 

allowance of appeal based upon the substantial defects of [an] appellant’s 

brief.” Commonwealth v. Maris, 629 A.2d 1014, 1017 (Pa. Super. 1993)

(citing Pa.R.A.P. 2101). While we will “liberally construe materials filed by 

a pro se appellant,” we may not give a pro se litigant special treatment simply 

because he “lacks legal training.” Id. Mr. Taylor’s procedural missteps and 

defective brief prevent us from conducting a meaningful review.3

Appeal dismissed.

____________________________________________

2 Mr. Taylor states that the trial court should have allowed testimony from his 

passenger, but we have no transcript to see how the testimony was offered, 

or how the trial court ruled on this evidence. He also requests an investigation 

and accident reconstruction by the state of Pennsylvania, but he cites no 

authority that entitles him to such relief. 
J-S33010-22

- 4 -

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 10/24/2022